Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment filed 2nd February, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 2nd February, 2026 regarding claims 1-2, 4-9, and 21 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, allowable subject matter is detailed in this Office action.
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 2nd February, 2026 regarding claims 10-18, and 20 has been fully considered but is not persuasive because:
Excerpts from Applicant’s argument:
“HRISTOV measures motion trajectories, not vital signs. While HRISTOV acknowledges that multipath reflections exist, the reference explicitly teaches eliminating multipath rather than using it. These passages demonstrate that HRISTOV's approach is to identify and track only the direct path reflection while eliminating multipath reflections from consideration. This is the opposite of what claims 10 and 11 require.” […] “Claims 10 and 11 require that "the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person." This limitation requires that vital sign data be extracted from both direct and multipath reflections. The Applicant's specification describes this at paragraphs 22 and 24: "The extraction component 210 extracts reflections from radar data 302 from all persons within the interior space 100 including from direct and multipath reflections." "The clustering component 212 clusters the direct and multipath reflections from each person together based on vital signs determined from the radar data." "reflections from the same person have the same vital signs" "the person 104 may have Direct Reflection 1, Multipath Reflection 1 and Multipath Reflection 2" "by clustering the reflections based on vital signs, the processing environment 200 identifies all of the reflections of different persons". The claimed invention recognizes that multipath reflections from a person contain the same vital sign information as direct reflections. By extracting vital signs from both direct and multipath reflections, the system can cluster all reflections from the same person and improve identification accuracy.”
“HRISTOV does not extract vital signs from any reflections (HRISTOV measures motion position, not vital signs). HRISTOV's system measures the physical position and movement of a subject to determine TUG time. The reference does not discuss extracting heart rate, respiration rate, or other vital signs from radar reflections. The Examiner's citation to HRISTOV for the multipath limitation does not address the context in which multipath is used in the claims-namely, for vital sign extraction and person identification. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to HRISTOV, which teaches eliminating multipath for motion tracking, to learn how to use multipath reflections for vital sign extraction.”
“The Examiner combines up to seven references to reject certain claims. Applicant submits that the motivation to combine these disparate references is lacking.”
Examiner’s response:
Firstly, in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). Applicant argued that “Claims 10 and 11 require that "the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person." This limitation requires that vital sign data be extracted from both direct and multipath reflections.” Claims 10 and 11 as written do not disclose clustering all reflections (i.e., direct reflections and multipath reflections) as Applicant appears to assert. Specifically, claim 10 recites “extract reflection data from the backscattered radar signal; determine at least one vital sign of at least one person from the extracted reflection data […] wherein the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person”. Reference HRISTOV teaches that some reflections are direct, with the path being direct between the reflecting object and the transmitting and receiving antennas. Other reflections exhibit multipath effects in which there are multiple paths from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna via a particular reflecting object [0040] which corresponds to the claimed feature that the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person. The claimed feature merely requires that the dataset from which the vital sign is determined includes direct reflections and multipath reflections.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Applicant argues that HRISTOV does not extract vital signs from any reflections (HRISTOV measures motion position, not vital signs). The Examiner would like to note that reference HRISTOV is cited to cure the deficiency of direct reflections and multipath reflections. Additionally, in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Further still, in response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Detecting vital signs uses the same underlying radar principle as motion detection. Both of the prior art references, RISSACHER and HRISTOV, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rissacher et al. (US 2015/0157239 A1 previously cited “RISSACHER”), in view of McGrath et al. (US 2012/0068819 A1 previously cited “MCGRATH”), and further in view of Hristov et al. (US 2021/0321938 A1 previously cited “HRISTOV”).
Regarding claim 10, RISSACHER discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (computer 118 [0036]), the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a radar system (a radar system 100 is provided for analysis of physiological signals [0036]), cause the radar system to:
emit a radar signal (transmit the radio frequency towards the subject [0037])
receive backscattered radar signals (the signal is reflected from the subject 122 and then received by antenna [0037])
extract reflection data from the backscattered radar signal (the signal received by antenna to be processed on computer 118 after data acquisition [0037])
determine at least one vital sign of at least one person from the extracted reflection data (the signal received from the radar system is processed by computer 118 using one or more algorithms or filters which extract the cardiac signal [0042])
and identify the at least one person by to perform identification, for example, the processed physiological signals—which presumably will be substantially unique to the individual—can be compared to a database of previously recorded physiological signals to determine if there are any matches. If there are no perfect matches, a best fit or other close matching system or algorithm can be utilized [0054])
However, RISSACHER does not disclose using a first machine learning model; wherein the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MCGRATH teaches to use machine learning-template methods to segment out each cardiac beat, and then employ statistical measures to compare a few beats of the microwave cardiogram to a pre-existing data set in order to identify the individual [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of MCGRATH, because doing so would improve system accuracy and robustness for identification of people, as recognized by MCGRATH.
RISSACHER, as modified by MCGRATH, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose that wherein the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HRISTOV teaches that some reflections are direct, with the path being direct between the reflecting object and the transmitting and receiving antennas. Other reflections exhibit multipath effects in which there are multiple paths from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna via a particular reflecting object [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of HRISTOV, because doing so would address target detections in a dynamic environment without being invasive to the subject’s privacy, as recognized by HRISTOV.
Regarding claim 11, RISSACHER discloses a radar apparatus comprising: at least one processor (computer 118 [0036]); a radar (a radar system 100 is provided for analysis of physiological signals [0036]); and a non-transitory memory storing instructions (computer 118 [0036]) that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the apparatus to:
emit a radar signal with the radar (transmit the radio frequency towards the subject [0037])
receive backscattered radar signals with the radar (the signal is reflected from the subject 122 and then received by antenna [0037])
extract reflection data from the backscattered radar signal (the signal received by antenna to be processed on computer 118 after data acquisition [0037])
determine at least one vital sign of at least one person from the extracted reflection data (the signal received from the radar system is processed by computer 118 using one or more algorithms or filters which extract the cardiac signal [0042])
and identify the at least one person by to perform identification, for example, the processed physiological signals—which presumably will be substantially unique to the individual—can be compared to a database of previously recorded physiological signals to determine if there are any matches. If there are no perfect matches, a best fit or other close matching system or algorithm can be utilized [0054])
However, RISSACHER does not disclose using a first machine learning model; wherein the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MCGRATH teaches to use machine learning-template methods to segment out each cardiac beat, and then employ statistical measures to compare a few beats of the microwave cardiogram to a pre-existing data set in order to identify the individual [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of MCGRATH, because doing so would improve system accuracy and robustness for identification of people, as recognized by MCGRATH.
RISSACHER, as modified by MCGRATH, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose that wherein the extracted reflection data includes data from direct reflections and multipath reflections from the identified person.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HRISTOV teaches that some reflections are direct, with the path being direct between the reflecting object and the transmitting and receiving antennas. Other reflections exhibit multipath effects in which there are multiple paths from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna via a particular reflecting object [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of HRISTOV, because doing so would address target detections in a dynamic environment without being invasive to the subject’s privacy, as recognized by HRISTOV.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISSACHER, in view of MCGRATH and HRISTOV, and further in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2021/0326660 A1 previously cited “KRISHNAN”).
Regarding claim 12, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV discloses the apparatus of claim 11. However, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV does not disclose wherein the first machine learning model includes a self-supervised similarity model.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KRISHNAN teaches contrastive self-supervised model learning/ training [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of KRISNAN, because doing so would improve generalization, robustness, and calibration, as recognized by KRISHNAN.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISSACHER, in view of MCGRATH and HRISTOV, and further in view of Jernigan (US 2022/0071535 A1 cited in Applicant IDS “JERNIGAN”).
Regarding claim 13, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV discloses the apparatus of claim 11. However, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV does not disclose wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to train a second machine learning model with photoplethysmogram data and corresponding radar data and wherein the determining at least one vital sign of at least one person from the extracted reflection data used the trained second machine learning model.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JERNIGAN teaches radar/ electromagnetic wave detector used for subject identification or monitoring the lungs or heart [0452]. The system may use one or more different types of artificial intelligence classifiers or machine learning [0387]. Synthetic high sampling rate PPG data can be generated and downsampled to train the system or augment training of the system [0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of JERNIGAN, because doing so would enable quantification of mental states less intrusively and more accurately, as recognized by JERNIGAN.
Regarding claim 14, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV/ JERNIGAN discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising clustering the extracted reflection data based on vital signs determined from the extracted reflection data and wherein the identifying uses a first cluster of extracted reflection data from the clustering (STAs like the one depicted in FIG. 4 enable the use of other downstream processing such as spectrogram and wavelet transformations. These transformations, for example, allow the data to be compared to data obtained from other subjects, or to databases of similar data. The wavelet transformation, such as a Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT), can include an algorithm that finds clusters and centroids in the data for comparisons [RISSACHER 0044]).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISSACHER, in view of MCGRATH and HRISTOV and JERNIGAN, and further in view of Cohen et al. (US 2019/0391250 A1 previously cited “COHEN”).
Regarding claim 15, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV/ JERNIGAN discloses the apparatus of claim 14. However, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV/ JERNIGAN does not disclose wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to identify a second person using a second cluster of extracted data from the clustering.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, COHEN teaches that the process 100 can determine one or more clusters from the first radar data [0022]. The visualization 122 illustrates that some of the points appear to be close in location, and as such, may be associated with a single object. For example, the points 124(2)-124(6) are closely situated, e.g., within a threshold distance, and in some instances those points may be estimated to be indicative of a single object. For example, the points 124(2)-124(6) could be identified as a point cluster [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of COHEN, because doing so would yield a robust representation of the sensed object(s), as recognized by COHEN.
Regarding claim 16, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV/ JERNIGAN discloses the apparatus of claim 14. RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV/ JERNIGAN does not disclose wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to identify a number of persons in a field of view of the emitted radar signal based on the clustering.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, COHEN teaches that the process 100 can determine one or more clusters from the first radar data [0022]. The visualization 122 illustrates that some of the points appear to be close in location, and as such, may be associated with a single object. For example, the points 124(2)-124(6) are closely situated, e.g., within a threshold distance, and in some instances those points may be estimated to be indicative of a single object. For example, the points 124(2)-124(6) could be identified as a point cluster [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of COHEN, because doing so would yield a robust representation of the sensed object(s), as recognized by COHEN.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISSACHER, in view of MCGRATH and HRISTOV, and further in view of (US 2020/0121215 A1 cited in Applicant’s IDS “HYDE”).
Regarding claim 17, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV discloses the apparatus of claim 11. However, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV does not disclose wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to transfer learning to the first machine learning model from a database of vital signs.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HYDE teaches that the parameter model can include various machine learning models that the analytics engine 420 can train using training data and/or the historical database 412 [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of HYDE, because doing so would improve accuracy of detection system, as recognized by HYDE.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISSACHER, in view of MCGRATH and HRISTOV and HYDE, and further in view of KRISHNAN.
Regarding claim 18, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV/ HYDE discloses the apparatus of claim 17. However, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV/ HYDE does not disclose wherein the first machine learn model is trained with contrastive learning.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KRISHNAN teaches contrastive self-supervised model learning/ training [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of KRISNAN, because doing so would improve generalization, robustness, and calibration, as recognized by KRISHNAN.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RISSACHER, in view of MCGRATH and HRISTOV, and further in view of Fornell (US 2021/0361172 A1 previously cited “FORNELL”).
Regarding claim 20, RISSACHER/ MCGRATH/ HRISTOV discloses the apparatus of claim 11. However, RISSACHER/ MCGARTH/ HRISTOV does not disclose wherein the instructions further configure the apparatus to: (i) determine a parameter associated with an activity of daily life or sleep of the at least one person based on the received backscattered RF signals; and (ii) prescribe an action that, when carried out, modifies the parameter, resulting in an improvement of the activity of daily life or the sleep.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FORNELL teaches that the sensing device comprises one or more video, ultrasonic, radar (mmWave, UWB, LIDAR and such), thermal imaging, microphone, piezoelectric sensors, or other sensors to detect motion, sound, and/or physiological parameters [0082]. Additionally, sensor device 2002 may send collected subject data to breath detection module 2003. The breath detection module 2003 may make decisions with respect to breathing patterns and threshold events based on breathing related data and subject breathing profiles. Such decision may be a combination of heartrate and airwave obstruction; where the obstruction can be deduced from the motion pattern and an increased heartrate; to differentiate it from rapid movements due to other reasons. In some instances, the breath detection module 2003 may provide and output signal corresponding to corrective action 2246 as described above. For example, breath detection module 2003 may send a signal to motion controller 2250 of the moveable subject sleep platform to activate a stimulating mode of operation intended to wake the subject and resume normal breathing and/or heartbeat [0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RISSACHER to include the teachings of FORNELL, because doing so would enable continuous monitoring for beneficial early detection of adverse events, as recognized by FORNELL.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is Examiner’s statement for indicating allowable subject matter:
The closest reference RISSACHER discloses systems and methods for monitoring a physiological parameter of a person using radar. The radar can be configured to obtain a radar return signal, the radar return signal received through a receive antenna and including a first physiological signal from the person. The system can also include a physiological signal sensor device, such as an ECG, comprising a sensor configured to obtain a second physiological signal from the person.
Furthermore, reference MCGRATH discloses systems and methods for remote, long standoff biometric identification using microwave cardiac signals. In one embodiment, the invention relates to a method for remote biometric identification using microwave cardiac signals, the method including generating and directing first microwave energy in a direction of a person, receiving microwave energy reflected from the person, the reflected microwave energy indicative of cardiac characteristics of the person, segmenting a signal indicative of the reflected microwave energy into a waveform including a plurality of heart beats, identifying patterns in the microwave heart beats waveform, and identifying the person based on the identified patterns and a stored microwave heart beats waveform.
Further still, reference JERNIGAN discloses a system predicting the mental state of a user using a variety of contact or contactless sensors that measure heart rate, breathing or other data of the user. A classifier for classifying a mental state is trained using event marking and ground truth data. Computer usage generates event markers. Interruptions of a user are also prevented when the user enters a mind wandering state by classifying or predicting that state and indicating physically or electronically that the user should not be interrupted.
In reference to independent claim 1, there is nothing in the prior art that would suggest modifying RISSACHER to have the missing elements without the improper use of hindsight. Specifically, neither RISSACHER, MCGRATH, nor JERNIGAN anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations of the claimed inventions as cited in the independent claim 1, within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “A method, comprising: emitting a radar signal; receiving backscattered radar signals; extracting reflection data from the backscattered radar signal; determining at least one vital sign of at least one person from the extracted reflection data; identifying the at least one person by using a first machine learning model to provide a similarity score between the determined at least one vital sign and at least one vital sign from previously collected vital signs of the at least one person; and training a second machine learning model with photoplethysmogram data and corresponding radar data and wherein the determining at least one vital sign of at least one person from the extracted reflection data used the trained second machine learning model.” Therefore, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 1.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 deemed allowable. Claims 2, 4-9, and 21 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on respective claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghoshal et al. (US 2022/0083120 A1 newly cited) is cited as pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of extracting the cardiac signature (feature detection) using AI (Artificial Intelligence) and neural network based learning systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 March 30, 2026
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights